The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Part XIII: No Law Respecting An Establishment Of Religion
An Introduction To Constitutional Law Video Library: Engel v. Vitale (1962), McCreary County, Kentucky v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005), Van Orden v. Perry (2005), Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014)
⚖️ Engel v. Vitale (1962)
Governmental Purpose to Advance Religion
⚖️ McCreary County, Kentucky v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005)
⚖️ Van Orden v. Perry (2005)
⚖️ Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014)
⚖️ American Legion v. American Humanist Association (2019)
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I’m just a Country Doctor, but like the Second Amendment, sounds pretty straight forward. Congress starts each day with a prayer (admittedly a usually long and insufferable one) but Pubic Screw-els can’t? OK I know, Congress needs all the prayers they can get, and Screw-el prayer was banned in the 60’s? Guess nobody told Principal Beamon in No-Fuck-Vagina 1975 because he read the Lords Prayer on the Intercom every morning
Frank
Ah! I was wrong to doubt that Josh would include the Establishment Clause. I still don't think anything good about his opinion of said clause, but hey, at least he doesn't ignore it or pretend that it doesn't exist. He mostly just wants to read it to bar only the final step of turning the U.S. explicitly into a theocracy.
stupid post. And lillogical.
He "would include" -- that is you not him.
And who cares what you think about his opinon, that's why nobody asked you to make the video.
"He mostly just wants" --- but again that's you reporting your opium dream.
If you use "explicitly' you admit it is implicitly -- yet you can't know that because HE WAS NOT EXPLICIT.
How forutnate we are that you are not a lawyer
Best analysis of the clause I have ever come across:
From the earliest times in this country’s history “establishment” meant church of a certain religious sect established by law. In the northern colonies, citizenship required being a member of the church established by law, e.g., the established Church of Massachusetts. In the south, the Church of England was the established church by law, e.g., Virginia.
An established church by law could infringe the “free exercise” of the people to worship other religious tenets if worship in an established church were coercive by law. Hence, why the federal First Amendment lumps both establishment and free exercise together. The disestablishment the First Amendment Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses erect is the “wall” between Church & State Thomas Jefferson was referring to in his famous Danbury Baptist letter.
MANY think Souter stupid and these quotes serve to justify that opinon.